JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioners have questioned the legality of order dated 27.4.17 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, in Civil Suit No. 15/15, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration that the agreement to sell executed by their father Jwala Singh in favour of the petitioners herein may be declared null and void. The petitioners/defendants preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11, seeking rejection of the plaint, taking the stand that all the rights pertaining to land in question have been seized so far as the respondents/plaintiffs are concerned and the land stands resumed in the State and therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs have no right or cause of action to maintain the suit. 3. The application stands rejected by the trial court by the order impugned observing that from the perusal of the plaint, it cannot be said that it does not disclose the cause of action or is barred by law and therefore, the same cannot be rejected invoking the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the allotment made in favour of the respondents' father stood cancelled by way of an order dated 15.1.87 inasmuch as, he failed to deposit the price of the land in instalments and aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by respondents' father also stood dismissed on 7.11.89 and as the same was not pursued by him and thus, the cancellation order has attained finality. Learned counsel submitted that after cancellation of the allotment, the respondents' father had executed an agreement to sell of 25 bighas of land in favour of the petitioners on 29.6.87 and possession of land was handed over to them and thereafter, they are in continuous possession thereof. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners being in possession of the land may be on account of transfer made in violation of the rules are entitled for regularisation as transferee and the matter with regard to the petitioners' right for regularisation is pending consideration before the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners being in possession of the land may be on account of transfer made in violation of the rules are entitled for regularisation as transferee and the matter with regard to the petitioners' right for regularisation is pending consideration before the Board of Revenue. That apart, learned counsel submitted that the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 having been repealed, all proceedings under the Act came to an end hence, no further claims or new suits can be filed under the repealed Act and therefore, the petitioners herein cannot claim any right whatsoever over the land in question and therefore, no cause of action accrued to them to maintain the suit. Learned counsel submitted that without examining this aspect of the matter, the order impugned passed by the trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 6. It is settled law that while deciding an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, the court is not competent to go into correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the plaint. The plaint can only be rejected if from bare perusal of the statement in the plaint without any addition or subtraction it appears to be barred by law or does not disclose the cause of action. 7. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is not disputed before this court that the land in question continues to be recorded in the revenue record in the names of the respondents though no sanad was issued in their favour. In the suit filed, the respondents have prayed for declaring the agreement to sell alleged to have been executed in favour of the petitioners as null and void being concocted and forged. From the perusal of the plaint, in no manner it could be inferred that the respondents/plaintiffs have no right whatsoever over the land in question. Moreover, the petitioners are claiming right over the land in question on the strength of the possession thereof acquired by them through the agreement to sell alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs' father Shri Jwala Singh. Moreover, the petitioners are claiming right over the land in question on the strength of the possession thereof acquired by them through the agreement to sell alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs' father Shri Jwala Singh. The contentious issue sought to be raised by the petitioners on the basis of the facts set out in the application filed cannot be taken into consideration while deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. It is always open for the petitioners to set out the relevant facts in this regard in the written statement to be filed on their behalf. Obviously, all the contentious issues between the parties shall be decided by the court on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties in accordance with law. Further, if according to the petitioners, the suit may be disposed of on an issue of law, arising in the matter, it is always open for them to make prayer before the court to decide such an issue as preliminary issue. But in any case, from perusal of the plaint, in no manner, it can be inferred that the suit as framed, does not disclose the cause of action. 8. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.